Author
Topic: who is still using film? (Read 67273 times)

I use both - Nikon D200 digital and Nikon F100 film. I've had a bunch of the film cameras, all Nikon, starting with FE2, N70, N80, F100, F5 and the mother of all film cameras, F6. Sold everyone except the F100. Digitally, I've had the D1x, D2h ( a lousy body) and most recently the D200. I've lusted after the new fx sized bodies, the D700 and god forbid, the D3 or D3x. I was cruising Costco today and they were closing out their Fuji Superia 400 IS0 at $2.50 for a 6 pack of 24 exp. They aren't selling much film these days. I picked up a couple of boxes, went home to refrigerate them and saw the 30 other rolls I have of Tri-x, slide and print film that's been sitting in there for at least 2 years. One thing I found about going digital is it makes you a lazy photographer. You can just blaze away without much regard to composition, light, depth of field, you name it. I'm going back to my F100 for awhile and get back to basics. The film camera doesn't give you instant gratification but the look of a print from film is different, richer, sharper, deeper. It also forces you to think about what you are doing with each shot since you have to spend some $$$ to get them developed and also because you can't see them right away, you had better be paying attention because you usually don't get another chance. My wife hates the digital camera because she never gets to see the shots! I upload them to the computer but she doesn't want to learn how to go through them using iphoto or Lightroom I use. Film is on the way out but I think it isn't dead yet. Who knows, maybe I'll pick up a good used medium format. Those things are now cheap!

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

I have switched to digital for most of my photography, but shoot B&W and a little slide film. My D200 and D1x do a good job of replicating the results you can achieve with print film, they just lack the depth you get with slides and monocrome images.

I have overcome the urge to just "blast away" when shooting digital by bracketing every shot with 3 to 5 frames, depending on the composition and conditions. It has forced me to pay attention to the details.

I think the F100 is probably the best film camera ever made. I also have a couple of old F3HPs and MD4s that I really consider my favorites. I usually carry the D200 and a F3 (loaded with Ilford FP4).

I am lusting over the new FX format cameras as well, but need to upgrade my lenses before I take the plunge.

Hi,I was waiting for some really good digital camera and bought Canon EOS300D when it came out. I was sold. But after some time I realized, it's not what I want to do. Now, I think, there's no much reason for having analogue camera in a small format, because full frame cameras with good optics have great quality.But I have switched to Sinar 4x5 inches and I'm shocked with quality, camera adjustement possibilities and the way of taking pictures with view camera is exactly what I consider as taking photographs. Now I'm looking for some bigger format (12x16 inches would be ideal).Josef

All thios films talk is making my mouth waater. I jist sold my Toyo 4x5 view with 20 film holders. It was gather dust here way too long. My original Speed Graphic that I bought used in 1959 still works and is in my "museum." My Nikon F1 still works 24 hrs a day as part of my house burgler alarm system (on mag switch to set off alarm if picked up.) I miss the darkroom side of the biz. I use to make 11 x 14 ND 16 X 20 Cibachromes all the time. Ilfrod was a client for videos and I bartered a lot. Stuff ws expensive then but out of site now. Another client was Agfa so they kep me stocked with 35mm film. other photo clients/friends were at Beseler, Bogen, Mamiya so film side was easy to do,...now, I dont know how film people can exist. Two weeks ago I had knee xrayed. I watched them do it all without film. The doctor came to xray and view the frame. THEN the technician exposed a sheet of film from the digital to have in my folder. Think aout it...that backward direction worked for their practise.

I had a Sinar f2 several years ago, and miss it. They are marvelous machines.

I have also held on to one of my Bronica 645s. With the bellows, I can get most of the flexibility of a view camera in a much more portable package. It's still not the same, but a good compromise for me.

The cost of shooting film has gotten completely out of hand.

I have a few friends who shoot professionally, and they have seen the market shrink considerably. They say everyone with a Rebel or D40 thinks they can shoot weddings now.

I switched from the old pentax to my first nikon (coolpix) and never looked back. I bought the D80 when it first came out and love it. The wife did not like the weight so I got her a pocket cannon for keeping in her purse for kid shots. I have to admit lugging the nikon around is heavier, but I just love nikon pics.

I have a collection of film cameras sitting on shelves in my office... among them... an Anthony 4x5 wooden camera, a 4x5 Graflex, a Minox B, a Mamiya C330, Kowa Super 66, Leica M2, Nikonos III and IV, Linhof 67, Polariod Swinger, the first instamatic and the last instamatic made... all really interesting machines.

I also find that the camera I use most these days is a Lumix DMC-FX500... great camera to use in the shop.

Oh, add to that a couple of High Def video tape cameras... and my current darling a Flip Mino HD that I used to document my participation in a mandolin building workshop in VA. Instead of doing stills, I just grabbed still frames from the Mino's video.

I dragged my CT22 and ETS-150/3 to the workshop (along with some other equipment) and folk enjoyed playing with my Festool toys. Nice to have a solid state camera and not worry too much about dust.

Have you guys seen the new Hasselblad H3dII 50? They can run up to $40K! Holy cow! The sensor is up to 50 mega pixels. The images are HUGE. Image size is 65 mb's in raw and up to 150 mb in TIFF. You had better have a large card for these shots. My cousin used to be a rep for them in SOCAL. Until they came out with the digital line, their sales were through the floor. I'll bet they can barely give away their regular film cameras. I like the Mamiya 645 series from what I have read about them. Used ones are showing up daily on the B & H website. Speaking of B & H, if you ever go to NYC and like photography, you gotta go to their store. Leave all CC at home or you won't get out of there alive. Well, maybe, until your wife finds out what you did. Then you are a dead man. It's amazing with the stuff they have. Pretty good prices too. My hobbies are killing my early retirement plan. Between Festool and photography, I don't stand a chance of quitting before age 80...

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

I too have some nice cameras Nikon F2, another Nikon I can't remember (because it's that may years since I opened my camera bag ) and a couple of older Canons and a whole range of Nikon and Canon lenses - including the aspherics. I used to just love shooting, (mostly when traveling, nature shots, cityscapes, some macro). Later on, I found I had less time for that, but that's another story. I bought a small pocket digital a few years ago, but ended up giving it to my wife. It's not he camera for anything serious. I would like to get back into it, maybe someday soon I will, BUT the thought of selling those film cameras and lenses for pennies on the dollar is a tough one. I know digital has almost completely taken over the industry, but something in me says it's "not photography" - I know, I know it's progress and perhaps the same thing was said when 35 mm cmaeras cames along, but do agree that digital can make you a lazy photographer. With film, you have a limited number of pictures (certainly waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than with a digital camera) and so more thought is given to getting the composition and lighting "just right"...or maybe I am totally a dinosaur regarding digital. Anyway, photography is a hobby I'd like to get back into; either with my old Nikons or digital one day.

When you do you might want to take a look at the micro four thirds cameras. Great liitle cameras and they can use all the older Canon, Nikon, Leica, and other brand manual lenses (w/ manual focus and aperature) with the appropropriate adaptor. The Panasonic G1 or GH1(if you're interested in stills and HD video) have great image quality and are still small enough that I'm more likely to carry it around than a Canon or Nikon.

When you do you might want to take a look at the micro four thirds cameras. Great liitle cameras and they can use all the older Canon, Nikon, Leica, and other brand manual lenses (w/ manual focus and aperature) with the appropropriate adaptor. The Panasonic G1 or GH1(if you're interested in stills and HD video) have great image quality and are still small enough that I'm more likely to carry it around than a Canon or Nikon.

Fred

Ok, Fred. I realy am out of the looooooooooooooooooooooooop here. What are the micro four thirds?

I will jump in here since I now use the Panasonic G-1 for all my art photography as well as studio work for the manuals and books. The names four-thirds, APS-C and others are hang overs from the days of video tubes and now refer to the sensor size (a four thirds sensor is half the size of 35mm film, an APS-C sensor is about 5/8 the size of 35mm film, etc.). In the case of the four-thirds standard promulgated by Olympus, Panasonic and Leica it also refers to the lens mount. Micro four-thirds is a different, smaller lens mount on a camera which uses the same 4/3 sensor size where the mirror box and penta prism have been removed allowing the lens mount to get much closer to the sensor (a shorter back focus distance in camera terms). This shorter back focus distance allows older lenses designed for much longer back focus distances required to miss the SLR mirror flipping up and down to be mounted on the micro four-thirds body and still focus to infinity by the use of a simple adapter.

Olympus, Panasonic and Leica all offered their brand digital cameras based on the original four-thirds standard with the very handy live view mode for composing on a rear mounted LCD. That well integrated live view mode made it much easier to do studio work since you no longer had to peer into a small view finder from an awkward angle as studio work often requires. For a long time I used the Leica version for much of my work and Leica designed (still does) many of the lenses for Panasonic.

Panasonic was the first of the trio to replace the mirror box and penta prism with a high resolution electronic view finder out of their professional video cameras allowing the use of the shorter back focus micro four-thirds mount. That is called a Panasonic Lumix G-1 or GH-1 if you want high resolution video as well. Olympus has recently added their own micro four-thirds version and many others are rumored to be developing their own versions.

What makes the micro four-thirds such a hot topic in the photo industry is that short back focus distance between the mount and the sensor. Adapters are flooding in from Europe and the far east to allow mounting of nearly any 35mm or 16mm movie camera lenses from virtually any legacy lens mount such as Leica screw, M and R mount lenses, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon, Canon EF and current mounts, Olympus OM, and many others that have a mechanical aperture ring. All manually focus and stop down and require shooting in either manual or Aperture Preferred mode but the results are stunning. As good as the new digital designed zoom lenses are, they are no match for a premium maker of what we used to call "prime" lenses such as the Leica 50mm F2.0 Summacron or Canon 50mm FD mount F1.4 lens. Mounted on a Panasonic G-1 body with the right adapter the images are remarkable.

One Shutterbug magazine editor covering the recent Tokyo vintage camera show (largest in the world I'm told) started his column by noting that nearly everyone entering the show had a Panasonic G-1 slung over their shoulder. The G-1 single handedly doubled or tripled the eBay price of the older high quality legacy lenses.

When you do you might want to take a look at the micro four thirds cameras. Great liitle cameras and they can use all the older Canon, Nikon, Leica, and other brand manual lenses (w/ manual focus and aperature) with the appropropriate adaptor. The Panasonic G1 or GH1(if you're interested in stills and HD video) have great image quality and are still small enough that I'm more likely to carry it around than a Canon or Nikon.

Fred

Ok, Fred. I realy am out of the looooooooooooooooooooooooop here. What are the micro four thirds?

Bob

Logged

The Dovetail JointFine furniture designed and hand crafted by Jerry Work in the 1907 former Masonic Temple building in historic Kerby, OR. 26 mi SW of Grants Pass on US 199, The Redwood HighwayVisitors always welcome!http://jerrywork.comglwork@mac.com

I will jump in here since I now use the Panasonic G-1 for all my art photography as well as studio work for the manuals and books. The names four-thirds, APS-C and others are hang overs from the days of video tubes and now refer to the sensor size (a four thirds sensor is half the size of 35mm film, an APS-C sensor is about 5/8 the size of 35mm film, etc.). In the case of the four-thirds standard promulgated by Olympus, Panasonic and Leica it also refers to the lens mount. Micro four-thirds is a different, smaller lens mount on a camera which uses the same 4/3 sensor size where the mirror box and penta prism have been removed allowing the lens mount to get much closer to the sensor (a shorter back focus distance in camera terms). This shorter back focus distance allows older lenses designed for much longer back focus distances required to miss the SLR mirror flipping up and down to be mounted on the micro four-thirds body and still focus to infinity by the use of a simple adapter.

Olympus, Panasonic and Leica all offered their brand digital cameras based on the original four-thirds standard with the very handy live view mode for composing on a rear mounted LCD. That well integrated live view mode made it much easier to do studio work since you no longer had to peer into a small view finder from an awkward angle as studio work often requires. For a long time I used the Leica version for much of my work and Leica designed (still does) many of the lenses for Panasonic.

Panasonic was the first of the trio to replace the mirror box and penta prism with a high resolution electronic view finder out of their professional video cameras allowing the use of the shorter back focus micro four-thirds mount. That is called a Panasonic Lumix G-1 or GH-1 if you want high resolution video as well. Olympus has recently added their own micro four-thirds version and many others are rumored to be developing their own versions.

What makes the micro four-thirds such a hot topic in the photo industry is that short back focus distance between the mount and the sensor. Adapters are flooding in from Europe and the far east to allow mounting of nearly any 35mm or 16mm movie camera lenses from virtually any legacy lens mount such as Leica screw, M and R mount lenses, Voigtlander, Zeiss, Schneider, Nikon, Canon EF and current mounts, Olympus OM, and many others that have a mechanical aperture ring. All manually focus and stop down and require shooting in either manual or Aperture Preferred mode but the results are stunning. As good as the new digital designed zoom lenses are, they are no match for a premium maker of what we used to call "prime" lenses such as the Leica 50mm F2.0 Summacron or Canon 50mm FD mount F1.4 lens. Mounted on a Panasonic G-1 body with the right adapter the images are remarkable.

One Shutterbug magazine editor covering the recent Tokyo vintage camera show (largest in the world I'm told) started his column by noting that nearly everyone entering the show had a Panasonic G-1 slung over their shoulder. The G-1 single handedly doubled or tripled the eBay price of the older high quality legacy lenses.

When you do you might want to take a look at the micro four thirds cameras. Great liitle cameras and they can use all the older Canon, Nikon, Leica, and other brand manual lenses (w/ manual focus and aperature) with the appropropriate adaptor. The Panasonic G1 or GH1(if you're interested in stills and HD video) have great image quality and are still small enough that I'm more likely to carry it around than a Canon or Nikon.

Fred

Ok, Fred. I realy am out of the looooooooooooooooooooooooop here. What are the micro four thirds?

Bob

Thanks! Going to check them out, since it would be a shame not to use that old arsenal of quality lenses.

I use both - Nikon D200 digital and Nikon F100 film. I've had a bunch of the film cameras, all Nikon, starting with FE2, N70, N80, F100, F5 and the mother of all film cameras, F6. Sold everyone except the F100. Digitally, I've had the D1x, D2h ( a lousy body) and most recently the D200. I've lusted after the new fx sized bodies, the D700 and god forbid, the D3 or D3x. I was cruising Costco today and they were closing out their Fuji Superia 400 IS0 at $2.50 for a 6 pack of 24 exp. They aren't selling much film these days. I picked up a couple of boxes, went home to refrigerate them and saw the 30 other rolls I have of Tri-x, slide and print film that's been sitting in there for at least 2 years. One thing I found about going digital is it makes you a lazy photographer. You can just blaze away without much regard to composition, light, depth of field, you name it. I'm going back to my F100 for awhile and get back to basics. The film camera doesn't give you instant gratification but the look of a print from film is different, richer, sharper, deeper. It also forces you to think about what you are doing with each shot since you have to spend some $$$ to get them developed and also because you can't see them right away, you had better be paying attention because you usually don't get another chance. My wife hates the digital camera because she never gets to see the shots! I upload them to the computer but she doesn't want to learn how to go through them using iphoto or Lightroom I use. Film is on the way out but I think it isn't dead yet. Who knows, maybe I'll pick up a good used medium format. Those things are now cheap!

My wife's the same way. All I heard was I want a good digital camera and I'd had the old 2meg coolpix for ever (great camera but slow but then it's old technology) I had wanted the D200 but just a bit out of my range ($$). I purhcased the D80 when it came out and loved it right off the bat! Love those nikor lenses. Anyway now she complains about having to go through and sort the pics. I even went and got her the epson picture mate that she just needs to view the mem stick pic the picture and print. Still not good enough. Finally gave in and gave her a little cheapy panasonic pocketbook camera and i handle the printer and cataloging. I gave up.

ya can't win for losing, can we? The one thing that has always bothered me about digital is the softness of the images compared to film. I can put on my 80mm 1.4 on the F100 and the images just explode off the prints. That simply doesn't happen with my D200. Maybe it's the glass but I doubt it. There is also a ton of post processing that has to be done for some reason even though the camera is supposed to get the exposure right (it seldom does). I have to use curves or sliders to get it right and then put in the requisite amount of sharpening. I suppose since film has a lot more lattitude in the exposure, the film processor fixes any exposure issues before I have a chance to see them. I have heard the D3 has awesome exposure and is razor sharp. For $4500, it should.

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

What's film? :-) My older digital camera always seem to require some adjustments, but my new G1 has the best metering of any camera I've ever used - I rarely have to adjust curves or levels. The biggest thing I do have to watch is that I don't blow the highlights as it doesn't have the dynamic range of film.

DSLR's all tend to be a bit on the soft side if you shoot JPEG's. You really don't want to do sharpening until after you've finished all your other post processing. If you want to get the most out of your camera you probably need to shoot raw, but now you're looking at a lot more post processing, but if done properly I'll bet you can't tell if its film or digital.

If you really want quality I'll make you a heck of a deal on a 4x5 view camera, 3 lenses and an enlarger :-) You haven't seen color saturation until you've looked at a 4x5 slide!

I had old friend stop by over weekend. He brought his girlfriend who is Fuji rep. We talked about digital vs analog and I said "I didn't even have a film camera other than the old F1 which has pin registered back and my trusty Speed Graphic. She went to her car and pulled out a brick of 35mm and 2 boxes of 4 x 5 film. I said thanks but I didn't even want to pay the lab costs. She pulled pulled a card for a lab in CT and told me to get film developed and printed there on her account - like free. I will use both in my ongoing area of art photography of women. Close ups with 4 x 5 will be dynamite. I do have to go downstairs and find a changing bag and the Grafmatics.

Just joined the forum and being a new Festool owner, I sure am looking forward to talking with many of the members on here. Photography and General contracting is how I make a living, (sounds like a strange combination). When I started out in photography some 27 years ago, it was with Nikon and the Mamiya RB67 with all of the backs (including the polaroid and a complete set of lenses), I still have all of my film cameras and some limited dark room equipment left over. I switched over to digital about 8 years ago, and the biggest reason was that all of the agencies that I have worked with and for need the images now.... upload FTP or directly to the web site. I shoot with the Canon 1D series cameras and the whole host of the white lenses that everybody see's on the sidelines at sporting events. I have been shooting pro sports for about 5yrs now and have stuck with Canon because of the amount of lenses that I have purchased over the digital transaction. I will be covering a college bowl game tomorrow during the day and a NHL game tomorrow evening. Photography can be the same as woodworking when it comes to woodworking tools and cost, but I am a firm believer in buying quality IF YOUR BUDGET ALLOWS. With tools and cameras you will always be able to purchase something that will allow you to get the job done. But as everybody knows, if you spend a little more initially you will save in the long run and if you take care of your equipment it should last a long time

I've been shooting for years, and despite currently shooting Canon 7d and 5d mkII's, I doubt I will ever get rid of my old film 1n. I use it occasionally when going for a specific look- usually B+W or Velvia. I did take the plunge and pick up a large format body/lenses that I can attach the canon bodies to.

My mom gave me her mid-70s Mamiya SLR when I took a photography class in high school. Unfortunately, I left it at a friend's house years ago and never got it back. It's one of the few things I've lost that I miss dearly, and not just for sentimental reasons. Shooting black-and-white film with a completely manual SLR forced me to slow down and really think about composition and lighting, and what I'm going for in the shot. Point-and-shoots and camera phones just don't work as well for me; everything looks like a snapshot. I've waffled about picking up a digital SLR for the times when I'm trying to take quality photographs, but I still think I'd rather go back to 35mm film.

My mom gave me her mid-70s Mamiya SLR when I took a photography class in high school. Unfortunately, I left it at a friend's house years ago and never got it back. It's one of the few things I've lost that I miss dearly, and not just for sentimental reasons. Shooting black-and-white film with a completely manual SLR forced me to slow down and really think about composition and lighting, and what I'm going for in the shot. Point-and-shoots and camera phones just don't work as well for me; everything looks like a snapshot. I've waffled about picking up a digital SLR for the times when I'm trying to take quality photographs, but I still think I'd rather go back to 35mm film.

- Mike

While I treasure the photos I have that I took with Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 50, I made the commitment to go all digital five years ago. My first DSLR was a Nikon D80 that my daughter-in-law now has. Two years ago I moved to the D90 with no regrets. Large, bulky cameras are history for me. I used to carry two F3 bodies and nine lenses. My back suffered from that, so I'm down to one body and two lenses, again with no regrets. The Epson R1900 does a great job of printing, although it can't touch the really great results I've had with Cibachrome.

Logged

- Willy -

"Remember, a chip on the shoulder is a sure sign of wood higher up." - Brigham Young

I still occasionally shoot film. I had some good (fast 2. lens for my old Canon ftb that I wanted to use so I bought a used F1.I shoot print film, send it out for development and then scan it and process it digitally. I think the color looks a bit richer more saturated than photo's from my digital camera but that might be my imagination. I will never forgive Canon for changing the lens mount when they went digital.I have couple different digital cameras and my favorite for convenience is a Nikon D60 with the 18-55 kit lens.Tim

I gave up up on film when I bought my first DLSR (Canon). At the time I was using a Nikon FE-2. Wonderful camera. Film does nothing for me these days. In my opinion good DLSRs now outmatch the old film SLR image quality unless you go medium/large format. Color profiles are the easiest thing to manipulate with Photoshop.

I still have a couple of Nikon AIS lenses that I use with adapters on my Canon EOS cameras for video stuff. Who would have thought you could shoot HD video in an SLR. There are a few movies out there that were done using this technique. Who would have thought that adapting a Nikon manual lens to a Canon digital camera would be easier than using an older Canon lens on a Canon Digital.

Nowadays I'm doing landscapes with a Canon 5DII and 24mm TS-E lens. While not exactly a Sinar view camera it gives me the same types of perspective and focal plane controls that a view camera would give, just in a smaller package. I love it because you get a lot of the old fashioned creative control combined with modern digital.

I have actually been shooting a little more film the last several months. For color, the flexibility of digital is just hard to match. The current generations of pro DSLRs are pretty close to replicating the results of slide film, and I never thought that would happen. I still feel you just can't match the depth and richness of film for black and white. As long as Ilford keeps making Pan F and FP4, I will keep shooting it.

I think the best consequence of the "digital revolution" is the depreciation of film equipment (my estate will disagree, but at that point I won't care). You can pick up Bronica ETRSi outfit for $350 now, and 10 years ago it would have been nearly 4 times that price.

I gave my old Canon AE1+Program, with some lenses, flash units, etc, to my dad many years ago (many, many).

Recently my sister and I we're sorting his house out for selling ... dad's very old and moving into care. I was surprised to find the old camera. For the heck of it I'm going to nurse it back into life and give it a go.

I'll be interesting to see if there's anyone nearby that still processes film - though there's a few serious camera shops in Sydney that will.

I think the best consequence of the "digital revolution" is the depreciation of film equipment (my estate will disagree, but at that point I won't care). You can pick up Bronica ETRSi outfit for $350 now, and 10 years ago it would have been nearly 4 times that price.

You've prompted me to have a bit of an Ebay hunt - cripes you're right ... even compatible lenses for the old film cameras (lenses that would have cost a bomb) are really cheap.

First, i have to go back to Jerry Works marvelous explanation. I know it was over 2 years ago, but I read the whole thing. not being a camera bug, I apologetically say," Huh?" Oh well, I also now only use my small Cool Pix. My old Nikon with its many lenses is, i guess, a dinasore. I tried to sell it a few years ago, but it would bring nothing. I understand that all of the lenses can still be used on some of the newer Nikon digitals. They just need manual operation. i used to be able to judge light and exposures quite well, but for so many years now with everything automatic, i cannot come even close on a guess. (Jerry, that was really a great report. I am a little dense about such things, but i do understand a lot that i knew nothing about before, even if i am two years late in reading.)

OK; here comes another enlightening story.

I had occasion to take a car (actually my pickup truck) trip across country and back way back in 1963. I had closed down my business for a 6 month period for reasons unrelated to my own business. the last four weeks was spent seeing this beautiful country. Along the way, i had made it a priority to visit Washington state and take one more look at Mt. Rainier at sunset. I had visited Ft. Lewis in Tacoma for three or four weeks in '52 as I was awaiting a ride to the orient. Every evening, if no clouds, I had spent the sunset hours watching that mountain disappeaer from the bottom up until there would be just a tiny purple crescent to disappear ever so slowly. For this soldier, it was the most breathtaking sight ever in my life. Anyhow, back to my more recent travels.

I did manage to get a glimpse of the disappearance of the Mountain one more time. the next day, my buddy and i took a ride up onto Mt. Rainier and ended up taking a late July hike up into snow. There was an ice cave that drew our interest and we headed inside. The sun was bright enough that there was considerable light inside. I had an old (i guess at that time, it was fairly new) manually controled 35mm camera. i don't recall the name. I never see it listed in any camera adds, but in those days, i did get some pretty good pics with it. Once our eyes had become adjusted to the light, i decided to risk taking some shots. As I was firing away, another would be prospector saw me and asked what camera I was using. He wanted to know what film i was using, aperture, shutter speed and whatever else any camera bug would want to know. He wanted to take some pics, so I gave him all of the info i could. i wanted to be helpful.

My pal and i finally walked back out into the light and headed back down the slope to get back to the truck to be on our way. "I didn't know you knew all that stuff about cameras."

"I don't know much."

"If you don't know much, how do you know if your gave that guy the right information?"

"I don't."

"Don't you think he will be mad if he finds out he did everything wrong? He will blame it on you."

"Well, I gave him a lot of ideas; but i really don't remember telling him where I live."

When i got back home and had the pics developed, every one came out perfect. My only problem now is that they are all on slides. My daughter gave me an adapter (I think it is digital) for Christmas a year ago so I can put them into my computer. When i retire in another 100 years or so, I will see what i can do about changing them. For the purpose of enlightenment, I think that stranger, if he DID follow my advice, had to be real thrilled with his results. I still was not tempted to look him up to tell him where I live. One can never be too careful. Tinker

I still sometimes shoot Velvia 50 on my old Canon AE1 and a slightly newer Canon EOS1000FN, but thanks to Sony for killing Konica-Minolta film scanner business and now Nikon pulling out of it too there just aren't reasonably prised good quality film scanners left on the market. And no, unless you're shooting larger than 35mm a flat bed scanner is just not going to cut it. I'm lucky since I can borrow a mates Konica-Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400 II scanner when I need one, but its a bit of a hassle to get it from the UK to Finland and then back after the scan project. eBay prices have just sky rocketed since Nikon gave up on scanners - last one I saw was 6500€ for a Nikon LS-9000 - they sold for 2000€ new

Mostly I've now moved to digital with a Canon 5D Mark II and gave my old trusty Canon 10D to my daughter to learn with. I've lately been drooling over the Sony Nex-7 for a travel camera, but that has to wait after some green shinies.

I love taking landscape scenery shots and stitched panoramas and I do say that bang for buck with the 5D mark II is just right and at the moment with the "old" current model going out with huge discounts it's forever better... Amazon UK is quoting £1461 body only Canon 5D Mark II Body @ Amazon UK

Will a DSLR take technically better pictures than a film camera? I'd say a definitive maybe I personally like the sharpness and low noise I get out of my 5D without film grain in my panoramas, but for B&W and retro shots film with visible grain in scans does have it's appeal. Also comparable file sizes for a RAW-file out of the 5D is about 26MB vs. an equivalent scan with the minolta of a 35mm slide at 220MB in linear DNG makes using film all that much more cumbersome and time consuming. Editing the scanned DNG's just plain kills my computer. Even if I run the RAW-file through DxO and output to linear DNG prior to Lightroom it still is only about 70MB per file so with automated preprocessing digital is faster to work with...

In my opinion good DLSRs now outmatch the old film SLR image quality unless you go medium/large format.

Better resolution, but only the top tiny percent of them are even close to the dynamic range of film.

I think it had been said that when the digital camera got to 5MP it is just as good as 100 asa filmAs for the dynamic difference, i just don't see it.

If dynamic range is a criterion, you might want to try HDR photography. Some work done using HDR techniques is very obviously done that way, much the way overdone polarization is very evident, but for subtle effects, it's another option. Digital post-processing from RAW or NEF files allows one to get some pretty great dynamic range back into to a photo, even if the photographer doesn't want to mess with HDR. I've been using Nikon's Capture NX2 with a few of the Nik Software plug-ins, and am quite pleased with the results. Some folks like Lightroom. I'm not fond of Lightroom's workflow, but it does have some features that Capture NX2 lacks, such as digital watermarking.

Logged

- Willy -

"Remember, a chip on the shoulder is a sure sign of wood higher up." - Brigham Young

Those appear to be testing the dynamic range of the scanner used to scan the film image for the test, rather than of the film itself. Those scanners have sensors in them just like digital cameras do, with similar limitations.

That being said, it looks like most of the reviews for the 1D mk II are indicating it gets around 11 stops of DR at low ISO settings, which is better than I'd thought (still less than film, but rather close). Seems the gap is narrowing faster than I'd realized on the lower-end formats... still differences (highlight rolloff which film handles better, etc.), and for occasional shooting in larger formats film is still cheaper, but progress is certainly being made.

(I actually have a 1D mk II, and have been quite pleased with its images...)

IMHO digital has matured enough to surpass film from a practical standpoint.

Digital is not always the time saver it is made out to be, on the contrary you often spend far more time working your images than you did before - simply because you can, and because you can do so much nowadays.

Unfortunately only a small percentage of digital users learn the four-five important steps or links in the digital output chain, color profiling, color management, optimizing for web, or print and simply learning how to prepare a digital image. Both when capturing the image and in post processing.

I worked in various labs since 1989 (quit "for real" in 2005 if I remember correctly) and I was brought up with B&W processing (started that prior to 1989), E6 (slide) processing, and C41 (neg) processing. I have worked making slide duplicates, prints from slides, negative duplicates, repro photography, scanning images, negatives and slides as well as operating various printers. I endured (with some teeth grinding) the digital transition, and let me tell you in the beginning digital was crap compared to film. You could hardly work the files and there was very poor latitude in post pro. It was a horror that went on for years. People were convinced digital was perfect and bought a camera with 4MP and a 32MB card (yes, that is MEGA, not GIGA) and set the resolution to the lowest possible AS WELL AS maximum compression rate on Jpeg and could happily fill the card with almost a thousand images on a trip. Looked great on that 1" LCD monitor.

You can imagine the outcries when they ordered prints, small prints, and the digital artefacts were so appaling it looked like LEGO. Then you had to explain to them why they could not even print a small print out of that file. Then they'd say "But, it's digital!" "Can't you just run it in the computer and make it bigger?" Cough.Sigh.

I worked as a photographer for some years, with Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and Hasselblad, with a brief stint with Mamiya7 and Rollei too. For me the advent of digital made working with photography unbearable for a quality oriented photographer, the customers wanted "a disc" and thought all digital cameras were the same and that anybody could take shots and why isn't it cheaper since you don't have to buy film? Etc etc. I stayed in the photofinishing and printing business for some years though, helping other photographers that were grappling with the new cameras. Progress was slow in the first years I tell ya.

We've come a far way since. Digital is still not perfect, but it is pretty darn good I'd say. I waited until the Canon 5D arrived before letting go of my analog cameras, it was the first "affordable" full frame (24x36mm sensor) digital SLR and still today it is quite a camera. I have moved on since then, to a Sony A900 with some converted Leica and Zeiss lenses, manual focus lenses. Today I prefer smaller cameras and shoot with an oddball camera that accepts Leica M lenses, the Ricoh GXR M mount. Not many have heard of it and most people dismiss the camera based on prejudice, but I can tell you it is one of the best thought out digital cameras ever made. Still waiting on a full frame module for it though...

As for the topic, digital versus film. Digital still can't do all that film does so well. Film has a very nice transition into highlights, it is a gentle roll off where as digital "clips" into the highlights and simply loses all detail. It is the main drawback of digital today and it is very hard to work with files that have clipped highlights. With (negative) film you "burn in" light on the negative and the more you burn in the denser the negative gets, and you have quite a lot of latitude to work with before it gets oversaturated/overexposed. Digital still can't do this gracefully and you have to expose differently.

Digital has an advantage (at least for the better small cameras with larger sensors) in that you can lift the shadows and bring up detail in them in a way you simply can't do with film. On film, shadows mean that you have not burnt/etched in any information on the negative so when you try to bring out the detail all you get is a murky gray with little to no shadow detail. Digital can often extract a lot of detail from shadows without the expense of losing the highlights. It takes some skill to make it look natural though.

On film (negative) you always err on the plus side (more exposure) if you are not certain.

On digital it is easier in a way, you can watch the histogram and correct exposure and you aim for an exposure where highlights are not blown but "as far right as possible", i.e. weighting it towards the brighter side of the histogram. In very harsh light digital will not be able to capture all steps due to slightly lesser latitude but you can still wring a lot out of it.

Digital is somewhat like Slide film in that sense. With Slide film you had to err on the low side of exposure if you were unsure. Overexposing a slide meant burning out detail and washing out highlights beyond recovery - same as digital. Some people would purposely underexpose slide film slightly to give it a punchier look. I used to tell slide shooters making the transition to digital to just keep thinking like you are shooting slide film and you'll be just fine.

Digital today (the better ones, that is) has the same latitude as slide film, slightly better even. It is not too far off negative film but still not quite there. As for the highlight roll off Sony has made the best sensors, which have a gentle roll off into highlights and this, together with color accuracy, was the main reason I switched to Sony. With Canon I felt I lost track of nuances and had a hard time recreating them in post processing.

When you are shooting RAW instead of Jpeg (I encourage this for important shots) you have not finalized the processing. You have simply dumped an image in limbo in the camera and you will finalize it after the fact. You don't set white balance on a RAW file in camera, or more correctly, it does not matter if you have set it wrong. You set your White Balance when converting the RAW file and choose and tweak it to the best setting manually. Also, you will have a more gracious exposure latitude. Not MORE latitude really, but you can shift the whole latitude which means that you can actually recover clipped highlight (to a certain degree only though - so don't be sloppy with exposure!) and recover shadow detail. Have you or your camera metered properly you can often do both. During RAW conversion you set a few parameters, then export the result as a .TIFF or .Jpeg for further processing. A .TIFF has the advantage of not being compressed and is best, but most times a Jpeg will suffice, at max resolution (minimum or no compression). RAW files look a bit dull and grey compared to Jpegs out of the camera, this is because you need to shift the exposure and set white balance. Also, Jpegs are sharpened in camera and RAW files are (usually, and meant to be) unsharpened and you are suppose to sharpen them to suit the intended purpose, which is either print, or web display. Sharpening is not the same for the two. In general sharpening is applied at the very end of post processing, after all else is done. If making a print one needs a higher resolution image than for web, so the best thing is to save a copy, shrink it down for web and work the larger file later for printing. If you save a Jpeg on a high compression rate and work with it and save it again with high compression it will look like garbage. For reopened Jpegs you should save them at MAX Jpeg settings (no/minimum compression) so they won't deteriorate. You can't recreate that lost detail by means of upressing them later...

Having worked with medium format film I will still say that a well exposed negative on slow speed negative film is very hard to beat. You can get close but there are limiting factors for resolution in digital cameras that aren't there in "analog" cameras. One of these limiting factors is sensor resolution and the AA filter nearly all digital cameras have to avoid a thing called moiré which basically is "false color" in small repetitive details (like window blinds and fences) that are far away and at the limit of what the lens/sensor can reproduce. As a whole most digital cameras have a smaller "system resolution" than the old analog cameras. Todays advances in noise reduction and sensor technology has helped produce much cleaner digital files at high ISO settings.

An ISO 1600 image from a modern dSLR today looks sooooooo much better than what I could get with a small format (full frame) analog camera at the same ISO film speed. ISO 1600 was GRAINY. A base ISO digital shot looks very clean for the most part with a slightly plasticky feel to open skies that creates an illusion of resolution. It looks clean so it holds up well when enlarged if compared to an analog print. But when comparing details outside of the sky portion the difference is less apparent and can sometimes tilt the scale in favor of analog. For me, I'd say a 12MP full frame digital camera is equal to small format film. There is usually little need for more Megapixels and doubling the pixel count does not double the print size. You need to quadruple the pixel count to do that.

The Sony A900 I had produced superb prints at base ISO and up to ISO 640, and is still one of the better cameras with 24MP. From the 12MP of the Canon 5D to the Sony's 24MP (Or Canon's own excellent camera, the 5D mkII) there is a noticeable difference, but not HUGE. Nikon has not played with that many high MP cameras but have chosen (and I applaud them for that) to make lower MP count cameras with excellent dynamic range (mostly Sony sensors) and remarkable high ISO capabilities. Canon has pushed on with the high MP race to some degree but I am not so into Canon cameras myself.

Phew, it was long since I wrote so much on this forum, but I have been nurturing my photographic pastime lately so I thought I'd chime in.

Thanks for the info. Very interesting.Is that the aforementioned ("smaller camera") the Sony A900 or another. What kind of photo's/subjects do you take, portraits, landscape etc. or anything and everything?

I agree with the vast majority of your post, and it was very well written and for the most part mirrors my experience.

Quote

Digital is somewhat like Slide film in that sense. With Slide film you had to err on the low side of exposure if you were unsure. Overexposing a slide meant burning out detail and washing out highlights beyond recovery - same as digital. Some people would purposely underexpose slide film slightly to give it a punchier look.I used to tell slide shooters making the transition to digital to just keep thinking like you are shooting slide film and you'll be just fine. Smiley

Digital today (the better ones, that is) has the same latitude as slide film, slightly better even. It is not too far off negative film but still not quite there. As for the highlight roll off Sony has made the best sensors, which have a gentle roll off into highlights and this, together with color accuracy, was the main reason I switched to Sony. With Canon I felt I lost track of nuances and had a hard time recreating them in post processing.

I do think you underplay the similarities between shooting slides and digital. If you use the same mindset, it will pay huge dividends in your results.

IMHO, the greatest advantage to digital is that you can extend excellent results further into the ISO spectrum than slide film provided. Of all of the slide film I have shot, and that is probably tens of thousands of rolls, I was never impressed with anything greater than 100 ISO. Kodachrome 64, Fuji Astia 100 and Velvia 50 were my favorites. I still don't think you get the image depth you do with slides (or B&W film), but do think that digital has caught and superseded color film.

This stumbles into another area where I believe that the digital formats excel. High MP digital SLRs are meeting or exceeding the resolving power of most lens manufacturers. When compared to film, digital images only rely on "one lens", where traditional methods utilize both the camera lens as well as optics in the enlarging and/or scanning apparatus.

Thank you guys, I was not sure if anyone was going to read my posting and two thirds down I was actually about to delete it, thinking this is perhaps the wrong forum.

Quietguy: Yes, I've shot my fair share of slides (remember, I had virtually free E6 processing...) and slide film thinking IS the best approach to digital.

I definitely agree that slide film was only really good at low ISO. In a pinch I would enjoy Fuji 400 slide film, but that is, in a pinch. For me personally, pretty much all ISO 100 films were solid - and as you know they all had their character (or lack there of). I almost never shot anything other than ISO 100 slide film. Or Fuji Reala 100 negative film. I was not a Velvia (ISO50) fan, but I did shoot some Kodachrome, both 64 and 200, the considered the latter the "best" "high speed" slide film. ISO 200 = "High speed" haha.

As for the digital sensors outresolving the lenses, it is a very long discussion but I don't quite agree with this. It is a both Yes - and No - answer to that. For practical reasons you need to look at the "system resolution" i.e. sensor size, AA-filter and how much lp/mm (linepairs per mm) of resolution you get at the end. In reality this means that sensors for the most part don't really outresolve anything but quite poor lenses. For better lenses that have high spatial resolution (a great lens can resolve up to and over 240lp/mm center and still over +100lp/mm at the edges- there is no way that resolution makes the transit across the AA-filter and sensor bayer matrix conversion, that much I can guarantee.)

However, digital sensors are easily good enough to reveal decentered and poorly corrected lenses with coma, CA and other abberations - so on that I really agree.You have to be even more picky with your lenses on digital.

Also, you are absolutely correct that system resolution is applicable in analog printing as well and must be taken into consideration. For professional printing (direct printing) we worked some marvelous machines that would squeeze the last grain out of the prints and were calibrated regularly. The whole printing system was calibrated every morning after warm up by means of a printed evaluation chart that would read the output of a test chart and calibrate colors accordingly. It worked.

Unless you make an obvious mistake, digital is easier to output in printing, provided you don't choke the resolution on the way out on paper.

For me photography is all about the lenses, a high resolving lens will always serve you well and will pose no bottleneck in the digital chain. The best lens I have, the ZM25/2.8 is stated by Carl Zeiss, one of the better lens makers and known for not throwing figures around loosely, to resolve a whopping 400lp/mm in the center at f4 - measured on a special film emulsion! This is actually at the maximum theoretical limit of optical resolution for a camera lens, and the highest ever measured by anyone. No one in the industry has disputed Zeiss claims. Anything around, say 240lp/mm is considered world class and there is no digital sensor that can claim to top out those figures. In order to avoid other digital artefacts there are limiting factors in the sensor array/layout and the Anti Aliasing filter that will reduce actual system resolution.

In short: you can stick the ZM lenses (and other superb glass) on ANY camera, digital and analog, and be amazed by the results. If resolution seems poor, it is the sensor that is maxing out before the lens. This is even more evident on wide angle shots with modern digital cameras where the system resolution is to poor (despite 20+MP) to resolve minute detail in grass/leaves on landscape shots. Sometimes digital photographers refer to lenses as "pixel perfect". These are the well corrected, high resolving lenses that chisel out them details all over the sensor surface and makes you go - wow!

I can tell you that my better lenses - one from 1974 - have stayed with me throughout my career and have never been outresolved by a sensor but of course the benefit of my best lenses (converted or adapted to fit other mounts) have been that they bring out the best of the sensors used. And sometimes reveal the sensor, but not the other way around. Today I have let go of my Sony A900 (resides no more than 10 min away though, so I have visiting rights) and my prime lenses as I have too little time to indulge and peruse said items. The Sony A900 is one of the few digital cameras that have been inspiring to use, and with results that have really impressed me. I will not show any samples here in a film thread though.

For the digital side of the discussion I think it is crucial to talk about sensor size. Smaller digital sensors pay a penalty when it comes to gathering light and the result that the applied "gain" to reach equiv ISO100 is higher in a small sensor camera than in a large sensor camera. When reaching higher ISO with the small sensor cameras (with a few exceptions, the P&S cameras) the applied gain will lead to a lot of image noise, sometimes grain like, very evident in dark areas, and sometimes color blotches, which are the ugliest. Most often both. To combat this heavy noise reduction is applied - to varying effect. Nearly all small cameras will render a perfectly usable image at fairly high ISO settings for web posting, where the artefacts of noise reduction (smear, blotches, color anomalies) are hidden. For print, or when magnified on screen it can look like a water color painting. This is the penalty we have to pay when people scream for high resolution cameras with a small foot print.

Some people argue that better noise processing will eventually make them look as good as bigger sensor cameras. That is false. The same noise reduction advances trickle both ways and today large sensor cameras have pretty amazing high ISO performance - and will always look cleaner and have more latitude than a smaller sensor. Physics still apply here.

Today I think, and most agree, that the APS-C format* has matured into the "new standard" for serious amateurs and many professionals too. The sensor technology is good enough for most applications and the sensor format allows for smaller, yet potent cameras. In this segment there are plenty cameras too chose from. For me, personally, I still prefer "full frame" digital cameras, as it gives a certain look with high speed lenses that you cannot achieve with APS-C or smaller format cameras, i.e. controlling depth of field and creating an image.

Also, all else being equal a larger sensor with larger photo sites will render better images, quality wise. They might still suck though. Nobody can help you or me with that.

Stay tuned: photo to come...

Camera Contax G2 with 28mm lens. Scanned from Kodak Ektar 100 film. A film that was poorly developed and all but ruined at a local lab around Moab, Utah. I had to scan all images at home before printing in order to correct them, totally backwards for analog work flow... Low res scan but with decent tonality given the harsh midday desert light:

*name is a remnant from the hideous film based APS "advanced photo system" which was a smaller amateur format with three aspect ratios accomplished by cropping in print, all shots are actually shot at APS-H.

In case anyone is still interested in details, toward the bottom of this page there is a section which determines a "megapixel equivalent" for a specific filmstock mathematically; it reaches the conclusion that in 35mm format, it would be roughly equivalent to 87 megapixels; in square medium format about 313 megapixels; in 4x5" large format, about 1140 megapixels.

Some of the 5-figure digital Hasselblads (medium format digital) can only reach 60 megapixels in a single-shot mode. Some can reach 200+ megapixels by playing some games with the sensor position, but this would limit their usefulness for capturing anything that moves -- those are more for capturing landscapes and still-life shots where the camera is mounted on a tripod or similar support and the subject doesn't move.

At 60MP for a single-shot, even 35mm film has better resolution... while it is still film, anyway :-)

There are still limits on affordable *scanning* of that film, and a scanned image from the film may not present the kind of resolution that can be obtained by a higher-end digital camera.

Well, theoretical maximum resolution is one thing and what you can realistically get out of a scanner is a totally different thing. I've scanned a load of old Kodak slides and a boatload of negatives ranging from no-name market ones to brand name ones with infra-red channel correction, IT8 colour calibrated scanning profiles in VueScan and multiple passes @ 5400dpi on the Konica-Minolta DiMage Scan Elite 5400 II that I have on my table with just increasing film grain with the addition of "image enhancing" scanning techniques.

Seems that the best resolution vs. graininess & artefacts is at 5400 dpi single pass scanning that produces DNG files of the whopping size of 250MB and frankly aren't anywhere near as clear or sharp as the RAW-files coming out of my Canon 5D mark II. Maybe you could get less grainy scans with a drum scanners but not sure even about that.

Yes, there is definitely more mega pixels in the scanned images (21 vs. 35Mpix to be exact) but because the film emulsion & grain is clearly visible at this resolution the pictures seem 'noisy' to borrow a digital photography term. Some graininess can be fixed with Neat Image and similar film grain reduction apps, but they also soften the usually somewhat soft images of days yonder taken with FD-mount lenses in the late 70's and early 80's on my dad's Canon AE-1 from 1976.

What I would count as a positive aspect of film is that it will most likely outlast every computer media in your house by a good hundred years if stored well, but with how the film scanner market has been all but destroyed lately it might be that you won't be able to digitize them in a hundred years from now just like you probably won't find a DVD-reader anywhere either.

Ofcourse there is the question who realistically will ever be printing house sized enlargements of their pictures to really need more than 12-21Mpix is beyond me

It's funny (strange) how Hasselblad equipment has somehow managed to hold it's value over the last several years. I would suppose it was the genius of having the ability to add a digital back to replace the film version but it's only a guess. Those H4d-200's... crazy at $44,000! My cousin was a rep for them in SOCAL for many years but she saw the handwriting on the wall and now reps digital media and is doing very well. She could barely give the stuff away. I still have my F100 and it still collects dust. I'm about thinking about replacing my D200 (it's about 200 years old in camera years) with the D800 or the D4 since they both do video too. The Sony is interesting but I hate thinking about having to sell all my Nikon gear I've collected over the years including some great primes. BTW, just a random thought, if you ever have the chance to go to NYC, you have to go to B&H on 9th Ave. It's the epicenter for photo buff's. If it's photo related, they have it.

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

O.k. a lot to read and catch up on here so i admit i just skimmed through. First off, I'm not a photographer. My personal experience with cameras is very limited. pretty much basic point and shoot. For those types of users i think that digital cameras are great. As far of the art side of things, I much perfer pictures shot with film. There's an organic nature to the colour tones that i find lacking in digital photography. Not to mention a skill set that has been erased in regards to developement of pictures. Movies are now 99% digital and I find the colour palate to be far too clinical, this could be trends in lighting but really I've noticed this change more with the advent of digitally shot films. Working on set, I know what to look for in a picture to judge the quality of a set. Ideally, you're not supposed to be able to tell it's a set at all. Digital high rez films to me bring out all these little clues to tell you that this world is fake, and i find that disappointing. Again my eye is probably more critical than most in this regard, but i can notice a "loss of movie magic" in more recent films over films even just done in the 90's.

Cutting to the chase, don't let film die! I miss it dearly. A good comparison would be analogue vs digital music, the full sound of a good record, vs the tin can sound of a digitally produced lp.

I use film. Can't say still use it as i was digital then moved over to film.

A few years back i had a Nikon D200 which was sold when i had financial issues. However a chance search on ebay found a spares/repair Mamiya 645 afdii body, i was the only bidder and won it for £49

A bit of research and then 10 minutes putting loose parts back into place got me a working camera. Now i have a couple of film backs and 5 lenses for it. I wouldn't change it for anything, not even a TS55

I must say i really like the look of velvia and ektar 100 for my landscapes.

I use a digital for day to day stuff, but when I travel or want to take of picture of something I probably want to print and put on the wall, I break out my medium and large format camera.

My Rolleis are easier to pack, and I'm usually shooting Agfa APX 100 (until I run out) or Fuji Velvia or Provia. I shoot the same on 4x5, though I've got some Ektar 100 I've been meaning to try as well. I'm not sure what I'll use when my Agfa runs out. I've only used Ilford FP4 on my 8x10. When I get the time, and if the images are good, I'll eventually make some palladium prints from them. I've dabbled in some of the other alternative methods, but I've been meaning to give carbon printing a try.

I must say i really like the look of velvia and ektar 100 for my landscapes.

Velvia became my favorite when I could no longer get Kodachrome 25, but since I moved to digital, there just ain't no looking back. Gone are the days of only 36 exposures per roll. I can now make thousands of shots onto the SDHC cards and swap them in seconds rather than fiddle with changing rolls. Capture NX2 and Lightroom provide all the darkroom functions I need to make adjustments as needed.

Logged

- Willy -

"Remember, a chip on the shoulder is a sure sign of wood higher up." - Brigham Young

I started out with a Pentax 35 some years ago, and then had a Nikon FE2 for a long long time. That FE2 was a great camera.

More recently I've gone digital and now have a Canon 5D2. I found there is a huge difference in the quality of the images that you get with a full size digital sensor vs a smaller sensor so I have no longer miss the look of film any more.

Just this year I sold off the last of old manual lenses. It's surprising how the good ones still have significant value.

I really don't have an issue with bad habits engendered by the ease of not having film. If anything it has helped my photography because the turnaround between taking the picture and seeing the result is so much shorter it's easier to remember what I did that messed up the shot and correct it for next time.

I've had several. Right now I've got an M2 and XE-7. I'd like to switch to Pentax for SLR, but even used the model I want is a fortune. I like Pentax lenses, for whatever reason, with black and white. Someday maybe a Monochrome and some summicrons but.... for now film is fine.

It took forever for me to switch to digital--a very late adopter of the new technology. Sold the Canon bodies and the Mamyia film hardware and got a Canon and a Leica digital.I kept an old Nikon F body and lens and had them professionally refurbished because my young son is enamored with the idea of shooting with it. So now I'm actually looking for some bargain basement rudimentary darkroom equipment so that I can show him how the old man used to do things in the days of black and white. I also kept an ancient Remington portable typewriter and had it refurbished because he so enjoys banging his little stories on it.

Wow, yesterday I was just speaking with a friend who has switched over to digital and they won't ever look back. I still haven't gotten back into photography and even touched my film cameras. But I just might make that jump into digital. What is holding me back is selling the slew of lenses and to a lesser extent, camera bodies for pennies on the dollar. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

I am in the same boat with camera and lenses. I have a bottom of the line (almost)Nikon digital. i have been thru a couple of them and each one seems to be getting better. About two or three years ago, tried to sell my old Nikon SLR and could get nothing for it. I have several lenses for it and I was told I could use those lenses on an upgrade to Digital SLR but it would have to be operated as manual. I used to be content with manual SLR way back in the ealy '50's and into the '60s but no longer have a feel for light and speed adjustments. I guess I have been 39 for too long. I had read this thread when it was first discussed here on the FOG and i knew almost nothing of what was being discussed. I just stick with my little pocket cheepy and save my $$$ for Festoys. @Bob MarinoTinker

Wow, yesterday I was just speaking with a friend who has switched over to digital and they won't ever look back. I still haven't gotten back into photography and even touched my film cameras. But I just might make that jump into digital. What is holding me back is selling the slew of lenses and to a lesser extent, camera bodies for pennies on the dollar. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

B

Used cameras and lenses are like used cars in that they lose significant value the minute you walk out the dealer's door, and the process doesn't stop. Then again, with the switch to digital, the new lenses are so far better in quality than they were even ten years ago and the light sensors in the digital bodies just seem to get better and better with every evolution. The one thing that the high-tech bodies and lenses can't overcome is the lack of knowledge behind the camera. The operator still needs to have a full understanding of light, aperture, shutter speed and composition. All the technology in the world can't overcome the lack of knowledge. That said, I must admit that I truly miss Kodachrome 25 and Cibachrome.

Logged

- Willy -

"Remember, a chip on the shoulder is a sure sign of wood higher up." - Brigham Young

I have a Nikon D200 and a F90. I was a student when I bought the F90 and it was horrifically expensive for me. I loved it and still do but I am ashamed to say that I cannot remember the last time I put a role of film through it. I bought a role of FP4 ages ago with a view to processing it myself and showing the kids. Needless to say I moved house twice and it obviously got binned at some point when we emptied the fridge.

Who the stuff wants to look at "paintings" not done with paint? The internet if full of art no one cares about. You just can't compare them like film of vinyl. The most highest flow of money within the art world is still modern art...

Henrik did a nice job with digital vs analog. I still use B&W film when on vacation or important family functions- weddings etc. Digital still doesn't have the look of a fiber based print exposed on an enlarger. I do love being able to have low and high speed, color and monochrome in one body.

I force myself to dust off the old film gear, replace (F) or recharge (F5) the batteries and shoot some film a couple of times a year. If I'm lucky and happen to find enough interesting subjects, I can go through 3-4 rolls per year. That's about it...and if I didn't force myself to even do that, the old cameras would just sit in the chest and collect dust.

And while a DSLR is so convenient to use compared to film, the in-phone camera is even more convenient because of its size. Especially with the new iPhone having a 12MP camera, I seldom find myself even reaching for the DSLR anymore to document construction projects.

Talking about film, for the purists out there, I came across this offer the other day. KONO Donau film with an ISO of 6!!! And who thought Kodachrome 25 was slow...

Almost no one owns a camera that can resolve the resolution of a medium format film camera. They exist, but they're out of mere mortal range of affordability. For example a $10k digital medium format camera back still isn't nearly as good as a film version.

Large format can't be touched.

Just saying... personally for small documentation and such I just use my phone, btw.

I just sold my EOS 3. It was a great camera in its day and I loved the eye control it had (I wish Canon still had this). I just haven't used film in several years so I sold it as it has no emotional attachment like my older all metal / manual cameras do. I also found that I really enjoy digital more. most likely because there are only 2 places left in my town that do development and only 1 I would half trust. I got tired of having to mail my film off. I also love using Lightroom when I get home.

Wow. Can't believe it's been 6 years since I started this post! It think that was more like 20 pounds ago. I was rummaging through the closet and found a few rolls of exposed film. Who knows how long they have been there. They may not turn out at all. Now I got to find some place to develop them. I've moved on from the D200 and have a D610. Fantastic camera! Fast and huge files. Using the video turned out to be a big pain the rear so I got a 4K Sony camcorder. Much easier to use. I'll see if Costco can send them out. I don't think they process any more on site. Who knows what I will find!

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

I owned a Nimslo 3D camera that I wish I still had. But like all the film Polaroids, Minoltas & Nikons I owned, eventually they just got relegated to the dust bin from the past.

I remember trading in a prime 24 mm, prime 28 mm, prime 135 mm and a 500 mm CAT lens for literally 1 penny on the dollar. Very foolish, but at the time, it seemed like it was the proper thing to do because I was in the heat of the battle.

Many consider the product overpriced, it's users are often very devoted to the instrument and the craft (although it seems that some are much more into the former than the latter). Not talking about Festool, though. Having just read From Darkroom to Daylight, it was noteworthy how many of the photographers interviewed still use Leica M's. Any Leica users in the FOG?

Just for film these days (M7, MP and IIIF). I had an M9 for a while, but I couldn't get over the price tag; it made it difficult to take out and use as a camera should be used. I'd love to have a digital M mount for convenience, but it doesn't look like that price curve is budging.

Who the stuff wants to look at "paintings" not done with paint? The internet if full of art no one cares about. You just can't compare them like film of vinyl. The most highest flow of money within the art world is still modern art...

Most of modern "ART" is cheap and it is that sell them, like made in China stuff. Most people buying it do not care what is on it but care just about the size which have to cover the ruined wall, and such "Art" is less expensive than to re-paint the wall.

Selling real paintings never been easy due to cost of such things, and today is added a kind of made in china culture too. But there are still people buying Art, just internet and massive information makes such small number of people, as always was, as neglected.

Just for film these days (M7, MP and IIIF). I had an M9 for a while, but I couldn't get over the price tag; it made it difficult to take out and use as a camera should be used. I'd love to have a digital M mount for convenience, but it doesn't look like that price curve is budging.

My M2 is a little beat up. But I try not to damage it, it is from the 50's and still going. I had an Olympus OM2n that I really liked, and might get another. They're pretty small and work great. But I'm such a Pentax lens fan... I might have to spring for their expensive one some day.

The IIIF I had was fun to use, I even got some good shots. I sort of miss it. The f3.5 lens was a pain, but it did compact the camera greatly. You can barely seen what you're composing. It's hard to take candid moments it seemed like, but I still got good shots?

I'd like a Monochrome Leica, for digital. I still fear the photos wouldn't be as valuable to me. However in the case of family photographs and such it'd be really nice given how many have been botched due to film issues... Yes I'd take family photos with like $16k worth of camera if I had it.

Who the stuff wants to look at "paintings" not done with paint? The internet if full of art no one cares about. You just can't compare them like film of vinyl. The most highest flow of money within the art world is still modern art...

Most of modern "ART" is cheap and it is that sell them, like made in China stuff. Most people buying it do not care what is on it but care just about the size which have to cover the ruined wall, and such "Art" is less expensive than to re-paint the wall.

Selling real paintings never been easy due to cost of such things, and today is added a kind of made in china culture too. But there are still people buying Art, just internet and massive information makes such small number of people, as always was, as neglected.

When my brother was in grade school thru highschool, he was a very talented artist. He was good enuf that even I thought he was good. Eventually, he ended up going to college to study art, and even more eventually, he became quite haughty in his ‘tude towards mere mortals of lesser talent. It was while he was attending Cleveland Art Institute that he invited me to come visit.

While I was visiting, he was won’t to attend a student, or faculty, art show on campus. The walls were covered with, IMHO, some very horribly and uninteresting examples of absolutely formless blobs of paint, each of which was enclosed with rather common forms of frames, wood and, probably plastic meant to look like wood.

As brother and friends observed each “painting”, the expressions of admiration amounted to such exclmations as: “Wow!” or “That is magnificent” and so on and on. I could not stand it so I walked on ahead in hopes there might be a table just around the next corner where it might be possible for one (specifically “I”) might find a cup of Java or even better, a cold bucket o’suds. As I stumbled along, I suddenly came upon the only art of any value in the whole darned exhibit. I stopped to look at the small girl sitting on a stonewall and holding a flower and looking off into space with the most dreamy and beautiful expression in her eyes. I just had to admire what I felt to be the only work of art in the whole darned building. That was way back around 1956 or ’57 and I can still see that painting.

As Brother and friends neared the object of my admiration, I decided I should move on, but stayed close enough I could listen to the "ooohs!" and "ahs” as they came upon a real work of art. Actually, I was not really surprised as I heard my brother comment, “Ugh! Why in (censored) did they ever let that thing in here?” His friends joined in with several of their own observations based on about the same level of admiration.

The best camera is the one you have with you. So, if I have one to choose, it's a digital. Monochrome, color, low and high ISO all in one body. Back in the film days, one of the reasons I became a Leicaphile was having one body for color and another for B&W and I used a wideangle (I have a 35 preaspheric Summilux which is tiny and my favorite lens) and either a 50mm or a short tele. It all fit in a small bag. The opportunity to purchase a used M9 at a really good price (effectively- no depreciation for 3 years!) allowed me to go back to my old work flow. I still prefer film for B&W (MP is my Monochrome). As for digital vs analog- it's subjective. As for what is art, digital has made photography so ubiquitous, that for me, what's important is- does the image say what I want it to say? My reason for photographing is Roy Batty's "All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain". I don't want to forget.

My problem with color is to compete with digital you need to use slide film. It's beautiful, and converted to B&W it's stunning. But it's so difficult for metering just right. It's too easy to screw up. Porta is ok for some content. But honestly for film I like expired color.

I'll say I like 35mm, too. I use a 50mm all the time but 35mm is handy for candid when you're with people you know, or in highly populated areas.

The worst thing about digital for me is price, generally. Sony Nex cameras aren't too bad (7 or better). Leica's are a fortune. But if I want really good quality I'll just shoot medium format. My big problem is the pictures somehow don't mean much to me with digital.

I'm a little bit of a camera nerd for analog, and knowing what's good... I've got a Minolta XE-7, which has an amazing release. Also I've got a Olympus Pen D3 half frame, 1.7/f; it needs to be gone through however. I use a P&S Yashica T4. But actually I love Olympus Stylus (not zoom) Epic/Mju or standard because it's got the best protective body and is good at metering. I had a Contax G2, and the lenses are VERY good on it.

I recently picked up an old Konica SLR on eBay for a few £. I purchased it for the 2Lenses it came with that I'll adapt to my mirrorless camera.

But when I saw the camera had a 'fresh' roll of film I began to take pictures. . . . Who knows what the results will be come developing, and I doubt this little foray will have me back shooting film again, but I am already enjoying the excitement of waiting to develop/see my pictures. Also the selective nature of taking shots, when there are only 24 shots on the roll. . .

Update. I finally took that roll I mentioned last year and one other I found to be developed and it was like opening a time capsule! There were pictures of my son in the sixth grade! (he's going into his senior year) It has rekindled my love of film. The guy at the Wolfe store told me that believe it or not, film is making a comeback. I ordered some fresh Portra 400 from BH in New York and it arrived today. I'll still going use my D610 but I'll be bringing my F100 body along in my bag. It's a much easier decision as the D610 is a full frame camera as well as my lenses. I like the anticipation after dropping off the exposed rolls and seeing what is waiting for me on the prints. I also had a motor winder/battery holder (MB-15) but the batteries were so old that they corroded and maybe ruined it. It was sent to Nikon a couple of days to see if it can repaired. If not, I'll just buy on on Ebay. Time to start shooting!

« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 10:32 PM by HowardH »

Logged

Howard HThe Dallas Texas Festool Fanatic!

Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a letter approving of it." "If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."

Update. I finally took that roll I mentioned last year and one other I found to be developed and it was like opening a time capsule! There were pictures of my son in the sixth grade! (he's going into his senior year) It has rekindled my love of film. The guy at the Wolfe store told me that believe it or not, film is making a comeback. I ordered some fresh Portra 400 from BH in New York and it arrived today. I'll still going use my D610 but I'll be bringing my F100 body along in my bag. It's a much easier decision as the D610 is a full frame camera as well as my lenses. I like the anticipation after dropping off the exposed rolls and seeing what is waiting for me on the prints. I also had a motor winder/battery holder (MB-15) but the batteries were so old that they corroded and maybe ruined it. It was sent to Nikon a couple of days to see if it can repaired. If not, I'll just buy on on Ebay. Time to start shooting!

If Nikon can't or won't fix it, you might contact Mora Camera Service in DC. Jorge Mora has been around a long time, and only works on Nikon products.

Logged

- Willy -

"Remember, a chip on the shoulder is a sure sign of wood higher up." - Brigham Young

hi,i love doing b&w photography.my go to used to be an olympus om1. great camera i owned since i was about 10 or 11 ish back in the early 80's. i always developed my own film, that was until i upgraded to my first play with digital.i bought myself a canon 1ds and a handful of lenses; however i also bought an adaptor so that i could run my old olympus lenses on the canon body.sure it meant i had to forego all the automatic focus etc and all of the exif data stated i was using a 50mm lens (due to the chip on the adaptor), but i was used to setting focus myself anyway and the multi point focus system on the 1ds didn't really interest me anyhoo.this opened up huge opportunities to use all the olympus kit i had, including extension tubes and filters etc.with a reverse adaptor to go from the olympus to canon i was able to use some of my add ons then revert back to the canon lens on the end.generally nowdays i don't bother with the om1. i can do all the processing i need in bright light rather than a dark room, if i decide i don't like my processing work i can go back and re-do it as many times as i like rather than possibly ruining a film.i tend to switch between my 1ds and a canon bridge camera (cant remember the type number) which has a 50X zoom lens. the bridge is good for snapping and not having to carry around a bag of lenses or a camera the size and weight of a domino. the 1ds i tend to use for serious portraits or long night exposure work.i would love to upgrade to a 1dx but find it hard to justify the price tag.however i do miss the times of dipping chemicals and photosensitive paints. i even had an old bottle of uranium liquid used for pulling out more details from under-exposed film....those were fun times that i look upon with fondness, yet i don't miss the time it took.

"We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible, for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, that we are now qualified to do almost anything, with nothing at all."